Viscariello v Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner [No 2]

The matter before the court was a dispute between the respondent, the Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner, and the appellant, Viscariello. The Commissioner had initiated proceedings against the appellant for professional misconduct, which the appellant sought to appeal on various grounds. The appeal was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The appellant challenged the Commissioner's decision to appeal against the orders of the Court of Appeal which had dismissed the Commissioner's appeal from an earlier decision of the Supreme Court. The appellant sought an order that the Commissioner pay his costs of the appeal to the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal, on the general rule that costs follow the event.

The court was required to determine whether the Commissioner's decision to appeal against the orders of the Court of Appeal was unreasonable, and whether the appellant was entitled to costs under the general rule that costs follow the event. The court considered whether the Commissioner's decision to appeal was a proper exercise of his statutory discretion, and whether the appellant's appeal was frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process. The court also considered whether the Commissioner's appeal to the Court of Appeal was a proper exercise of his statutory discretion, and whether the appellant's appeal to the Supreme Court was frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process.

The court found that the Commissioner's decision to appeal against the orders of the Court of Appeal was not unreasonable, and that the appellant's appeal to the Supreme Court was not frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process. The court held that the appellant was entitled to costs of both appeals, on the general rule that costs follow the event. The court noted that the appellant had succeeded on the merits of his appeal to the Supreme Court, and that the Commissioner's appeal to the Court of Appeal was ultimately unsuccessful. The court held that the Commissioner's decision to appeal was not so unreasonable as to amount to an abuse of process, and that the appellant was therefore entitled to costs of both appeals.

The court made an order that the Commissioner pay the appellant's costs of the appeal to the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal, on the general rule that costs follow the event. The court held that the costs should be assessed on the standard basis, and that the appellant was entitled to recover his costs from the Commissioner. The court noted that the appellant had made a substantial contribution to the resolution of the dispute, and that the Commissioner's decision to appeal had caused unnecessary expense and delay. The court held that the appellant was therefore entitled to recover his costs from the Commissioner, in accordance with the general rule that costs follow the event.